A wake-up call for social epidemiologists studying health inequalities: Response to Dijkstra & Horstman

In their paper, published in this journal, Dijkstra & Horstman critically reflect on a selection of social epidemiological articles and examine how low socioeconomic status populations are constructed in these articles. They identify four components which they argue represent the dominant thought style of this literature: 1) proliferation, 2) generalization, 3) problematization and 4) individualization. We largely agree with their first two points, but strongly disagree with the other two, and explain why in our reply. All in all, we believe that their analysis is a wake-up call for social epidemiologists, rightly pointing to the risk that the relevance and moral origins of the use and study of categories, like 'low socioeconomic status', can easily become less visible, and therefore should be articulated and explained every time.

Automated summary

The paper critically reflects on the construction of low socioeconomic status populations in social epidemiological articles. The authors agree with some points but disagree with others, explaining their reasons in the reply. Overall, the analysis serves as a wake-up call for social epidemiologists to consider the relevance and moral origins of using and studying categories like 'low socioeconomic status'.